commissioner antonini: and i neglected to say i have two representatives of both of those same projects, also, within the last week, thank you. clerk: commissioners if there are no other matters, we can move to directors reports, announcements and review of the board of appeals, supervisors and historic preservation commission. >> good after noon. i just wanted to mention a cub hinges. two meeting next week to remind you of. i believe you have received notification. one is wednesday the 8th notification. one is wednesday the 8th. at 5:45. we are -- in fact, i am hosting a discussion of the housing element. that will take 5:45 december 8th, in room 431. the public is invited. also saturday morning, 10:00 a.m. at the department, we will have a discussion of the department's action plan and the

most recent changes that we are proposing to you, and it's the subject of your memo that you admitted into your packet as well. again, that second meeting was december 11th 10:00 a.m. at the planning department. with respect to the action, we will be calendaring this for a full hearing in january. i wanted to call your attention to the memo in your packet that outlines the status of the department's reforms and in particular highlights our proposed revisions to the development review process. as it says in the memo, we have piloted this process with a couple of projects, and i believe this is a solid way of moving forward and feel good about way staff has come up with this process that itch think will be bloat more transparent and create more certainty for project sponsors. so i am very pleased about this process. we will, as i said, having a

hearing at the planning commission and historic preservation commission on that item. i also want do call your attention to the memo regarding cueing, vehicle cueing in your packet. you may be aware that's actually received media attention, we had initially proposed this, as what we perceived to be a growing problem of queuing on some types of retail establishments in the city, especially large grocery stores. there had been discussion, as you know, of a condition of approval that would require at some point, paying to park if the queue would continue. after furse analysis of that, what we have proposed is a standard condition in the future for these types of project that would essentially not allow practice queue. the way the standard condition would read is that we would dish there is responsibility of the owner and operator to make sure

there is no cueing there and there would be certain conditions put in place to allow us to make that determination and take further anion in the future. this solves the goal of the department. it was not to pay for parking but to address the queue so this addresses that much more directory and we believe it's a more workable solution. so our proposal is to actually use this as a standard condition now in future parking spaces of more than 20 spaces. thank you. i believe there was -- the board did not meet so there is no board of supervisors report for you this week as well. that's it for me, thank you. clerk: my understanding, commissioners is also no board of appeals report. i would not that the historic preservation commission did meet. director rahaim was there at that meeting yesterday and i think the only two things of not

is that on the soma missor rick resource survey, there was discussion, but ultimately the item was sins until next month. and, on article 311 the commission actually took action. they passed the draft motion with modifications of article 11 and section 309. i believe the final motion will just be sent to them. the item will no longer be calendared before this. they did have questions about, you know he, the next steps they really would like to involve themselves in the process of this commission as it goes forward with review of those issued. and that completes my worth unless the director has anything to add. clerk: ok, commissioners -- president miguel: and the information as to the details of the action they took will be

available hopefully in our packet at some reasonable time? clerk: as soon as the staff completes those modifications, and the resolution with their modifications, they would be forwarded to you, also. >> if i may, it would be helpful to know if the commission would like to calendar another hearing on that item as well, on these items. you have had, i believe -- my recollection is when you had the joint hearing. you wanted to have further discussions on these in the fit. i would think on our own unless there is an objection. >> our own, but -- >> well, initially on other on own and particularly after we have this information. it's probably going to end up being january. vice president olague: they discussed it on their own so we should have that opportunity to discuss it on our own.

president miguel: or february,. clerk: exactly, commissioners with that, we can move forward on your calendar to general public comment that has a 15-minute time limit. at this time, members of the public may address you on items of interest to the must be that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, each member of the public may address you for 15 minutes, keeping in mind that the category has a 15-minute time limit and that the public may not address you at this time on any item that is on your calendar. president miguel: any general public comment on non-calendared items? if not, general public -- excuse me. if not, general public comment is closed. clerk: thank you. commissioners then we are ready to start your regular calendar with item 10, case 2010.0965t, an ordinance amending planning code section 243, the van ness

special use district to require a conditional use authorization for other entertainment uses. >> good afternoon. the ordinance before you would amend the van ness special use district. sponsored by supervisor alioto peer, and i believe the supervisor staff is here to tell you a little bit about the intent of the legislation and then i will go over the department recommendation as well as one modification we will describe. mr. barns? >> phil barns. good afternoon, the van ness, d a you know is an under lying district between 1 and 4 and as a result there's disjointed planning where parcels are required for use for entertainment, others do not.

we were hearing from the community that neighborhood groups weren't getting notices when new entertainment businesses were going in, nor were they given the opportunity to comment. we think a uniform standard is good policy. in discussion with planning staff, we uncovered the underlying zoning, and rc disdis, so the supervisors is open to addressing that through this legislative vehicle as well, we have this item calendared in the last ease committee, and we hope we will be able to get this moved through the process. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners the department is recommending approval of this piece of legislation before you. as mr. barns recommended, we have one recommended modification and that has to do with the way land uses are permitted in this district. in the van ness special use

district, if they don't specify how the uses are controlled, then you would refer to how will underlying zoning permits uses. in this case, it doesn't specify how often entertainment is closed, it relies on underlying districts, rc3 and 4, and there is also a clause that doesn't talk about uses but they say you should determine whether uses are permitted in these districts by looking at the nearest neighborhood commercial district and it regulates that use that's how it should be located in this area. in this instance along van ness, you have a big strip of retail that has a more coherent look to it than the neighboring nc districts, so when you are applying chromes for what happens on van ness eve you are looking at different districts

with varying controls. this is something that the department has pointed out to you is an issue through an error. it was changed to this, referred to as the nc district in 2008, prior to that change, it referred to the c-2 district which is more come patible what we feel is appropriate on van ness. that's what we recommend that we make this change to go back to riverring to the c-2 district so we have the coherency and controls along this area. this modification is tangentially related to this legislation. it has taken a longer course, we have received two comments on this legislation, one comment was just delivered to you this morning from the california music and culture association and they are concerned about the actual substance of this ordinance and whether entertainment should require a c or not. the other comment we have

received is from livable cities and they are concerned about our recommended modification. they would prefer not to go back to the c2 district because they feel that is a little out of date and that the nc district would be more appropriate. so let me tell you about our recommended change and let me also say if you don't feel like the mood identification needs to be incorporated this week, that's something we can wait. we have another piece of legislation coming before you next week and we can consider and do a little bit more look into it and talk to you next week if that's your preference. but in this case we feel it would provide the coherency to the district and we have interpretation is that refer to both nc and c-2, so there's discrepancy about the control is currently in the definition of the rc district. it says commercial uses in this area should be permitted as described in the c2. so that's inconsistent with other places in the code where

it refers to the nc district. so we feel there are a number of things pointing towards the which 2. and also you have should know that since we have made this change about whether the underlying zoning should refer to the nc districts, or the c2, we have only processed two conditional use authorization by this commission and both of those were approved, so there for we feel that the controlled that would allow this permissively are appropriate. and as mr. barns prescribed, the ordinance will be at the last use committee next week, so your recommendation is important today so you may have an opportunity to weigh in on the legislation. that concludes my report -- oh, one other thing, whether we are referring to the underlying nc or c2 only affects whether the uses would be permitted in this

area. the other controls that go along with nc districts do not necessarily apply, it's only whether the uses are permitted or not permitted and that is based on a decision made by the zoning administrator. he has indicated that would be his decision and he is available today if you have any questions about that particular decision. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: i have one card on public comment, tom radulovich? good afternoon, executive director of liveable city. we are not here to speak to the legislation. the issue is rezoning every rc district in town. it's part of the staff recommendation that we staple on that switches from the nc

controls for residential uses back to the c2 control. you have's got an ordinance that's going to deal very directly with this same question that's going to be heard before you next week. we've been looking forward to the staff report on that and see what they think and what the compareson is between the two districts. but there's broad-reaching implications of this, but you need to understand, formula retail controls is one, every nc has them. it's defined as a use. so if you go back to c2, which doesn't of formal retail controls, those could be lifted in broad swaths of the city, not just van ness but the tenderloin, pacific, golden gate, etc. the other is use size limits, you know, again, we agree where the department that borrowing the controls, whether those be permitted uses, or permitted nonresidential use sizes from the adjacent districts is not a

good idea. and then c2 is a pretty crusty old district. it predates from the 1980's and predates mixed use districts. it has controls in it that needs looking at. one of the problems covers very, very different parts of the city, stones town, executive park and the northeast water front. it's hard to write a con here rent set of controls that make sense for it. of course a lot of those areas are very, very unlike places like the tenderloin or lower n ab hill, that are very transit oriented, fine gained and small scale. so this ordinance is going to deal what should be the permitted uses and we are asking you not to staple it on to this ordinance, and let the supervisor's ordinance move forward and take this up next week. there's other things too, driving uses, we were talking

about queuing, and in most walkable areas, those create a big problem. those are principally permitted in a c2 district, you could end up with a 30,000 square foot drive-thru taco bell at the corner of mason and pacific. i don't think that's the appropriate use, if you do, you have the right ordinance in front of you. in you don't, and you think maybe let's look at those rc districts, and find the appropriate use size limits and range of uses then we ask you take this out of the staff recommendation and take it up next week, thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> sioux lester. i would like to follow up on what tom just said. i have been dealing with trying to figure out c2 zoning in another area, namely the northern water front. c2 zoning is leftover sites

takes are left over from the downtown plan and left over from the neighborhood commercial controls. those both went through in the 80's. massive rezoning. and there were areas left over. the other remnant that you mostly dealt with was the cm zoning. they have weird sections in the code that apply. the height limits are strange in there and you have to go through all of -- pardon me it's not the height limits, it's the f.a.r. limits, at the very end of f.a.r. is nc2 that is closer to a c3 than to ner, 10-1, the highest f.a.r. in the city. so i have been trying to figure out how to eliminate c2's around the city, as i'm dealing with various areas.

it is way backwards to go back to c2. i believe the c2's were created in the, oh, i was going to say 60's. i think they were the 60's, before i was dealing with the planning commission, which was 1969, c2 existed. it's an ancient thing. it has a very high parking requirement. you don't want to go anywhere near c2. it is more trouble than it is worth. so i ask the staff maybe to pull up a map and just said where are all the c2's? they will be in weird places and there are c1's that are even weirder. we've mostly been getting rid of them on eastern neighborhoods. don't go backwards to c2 for anything, please. thank you. president miguel: thank you. additional public comment on this item?

>> good afternoon commissioners, i am terrence allen speaking to you as a resident and industry member of the entertainment industry and one of the founding members of the california music and culture association. in communication with the supervisor's office recording the underlying intent of this legislation, the california music and culture association came to understand that it was, the intent was the notification process so that residents and other merchants who inhabit the area around a potentially new entertainment use would be adequately notified and woof an opportunity to weigh in. i want to bring to this body's attention there are two notification processes that already, sift for such a use. the first includes a mailing. the radius of 100 feet. it's mandatory when you apply for your liquor license. the second is a mandatory posting by the entertainment commission that requires a large

posting be displayed in the front of the building where this proposed entertainment use is for 30 days prior to the hearing, notifying of the time and date of the hearing so that public comment and other written comments can be submitted in advance. it's the intent of this legislation is to improve on that notice rather than attaching a cu process to this change of use to entertainment, we would suggest that the legislation enhance the notification process that is already in existence at the entertainment submission so this mailing could be done there. the reason for that is the entertainment commission will not accept any application for entertainment, other entertainment uses had until the planning department has signed off that it is a principal and permitted use or that it has

been permitted through a cu process. it tacks on the potential of a year or whatever the c.u. process may entail. the time, the money, and in many instances, landlords are very unwilling to give an open-ended time period where free rent would be available. so what you have is, by the intent of this legislation, notification, but the practical reality will be the turning down of entertainment uses because of the cost and time that's going to be involved in this additional step. so i would urge this commission to think seriously about that intent and perhaps make a suggestion back to the supervisor that the intent of notification can be done much more elegantly in another way and not involve your department in a time-consuming process that

actually will discourage the addition of entertainment to already existing uses. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, good afternoon, chris shulman, small business commission. firstly, the small business commission legislation and policy recommended approval of this ordinance as originally drafted. so my comments will not speak to the van ness other entertainment zoning. in regards to the staff recommendation on applying c2 zoning to the rc districts, the commission recognizes that the current policy of borrowing nc controls is problematic and we support revisions. however, the small business commission staff is concerned that applying c2 zoning controls in rc districts may be

problematic if it lists the condition that formula retail requires conditional use. we ask that whichever way you choose to go, be it c2 our nct3 that you ensure it requires a conditional use authorization. i wanted to note that the small business commission did vote to recommend approval of the commercial parts of the controls which you will hear next week when they approved that ordinance, they did not that it would apply the formula retail controls and also noted the use site limits, we appreciate you taking our freed back into consideration. president miguel: thank you. additional push comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. vice president olague? vice president olague: , i guess i wanted to gee ahead and support the comments of

mr. radulovich and miss hester, and also, the small business commission has a similar screw on this. so i would rather wait -- pull that out and discuss it next week when we see this other legislation but it seems to be that applying the c-2 to nonresidential uses might be something that requires further discussion. so -- and then of course we heard from a member of the public, mr. allen who mentioned the thing of noticing. i hope those discussions will continue with the supervisor's office. blue i was just -- but for sure i would go ahead and support everything at this point with the exception of that c2 discussion which can wait a week. but i guess mr. barns just wanted to check in with you on where your conversations are aren't stuff. >> it is the intent of the

supervisor to extend notice but also the intent to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to weigh in. we think that the planning department provide is that opportunity around the specific locations. one discuss we had was the idea of doing a process where it's not conditional use, but maybe people could file for a dr. as we move forward, we would ask that we recommend approval of the conditional use requirement, but remain opening to talking about other different approaches that provide notification without the cost of a cu. >> great. so i am going to go ahead, then, and move, including the lack that mr. barns just sort of read into the record, encouraging continued conversations between the supervisor's office and meshes of the entertainment condition. but to also pull out the staff recommendations, regarding

nonresidential uses and rc districts until next week. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions for mr. barns. i guess the first is twofold. on the issue of the cu, did any discussion ensue in the supervisor's office about having something like a mandatory dr, which, perhaps, makes it a little less cumbersome on an applicant for an entertainment as was pointed out earlier, and, yet, still, it's a matter of public process, but, perhaps, not so much expense involved, and also a little lower ceiling for approval. >> absolutely. just by way of example, the laurel inn also in our district had a deejay go into their bar, and no one objected and no one filed the dr, we are looking at the entertainment community in a way where the use would be

approved, whether that's a mandatory dr. it's a good comment. commissioner antonini: that's why i would like to see this evolve further before we make our recommendation. with a mandatory d.r., it happens whether anybody from the neighborhood or not speaks against the thing, it still is going to be adhered by the planning commission, so it will be a matter of public comment. my other question is on the c2 zoning. i sort of see van ness as kind of an extension in some ways, a major boulevard marketed to the east. and that might be the appropriate zoning for that to be in this particular instance. can you comment on that? >> absolutely. supervisor alioto pier would share your view that the c2 controls are appropriate. about that said, there are other

districts in the rc's and it remains a complicated issue but relative to van ness the supervisor would share your view. there seems to be a lot of willingness to work together to figure that out. whether it happens in our legislation or something else, we are confident that everybody is committed to fixing what they identify as a real problem. commissioner antonini: thank you. i have a few problems. i am not quite sure whether c2 is appropriate, but probably more appropriate than the adjoining neighborhood commercial, which is so specialized for the little neighborhood things that are there and i think we need greater flexibility on van ness and we already have a special use district that has certain requirements that are fairly stringent. also, mr. barns, maybe you could add in something else, there's been this mention of formula retail but this doesn't deal with that anyway. there's no guarantee that you are going to have a cu on

formula retail eastern no matter what type of zoning you have in here. >> that would be our view, that when san franciscans look to put controls in neighborhood commercial areas, there was an understanding that the van ness corridor was not one of those. it wasn't our motivator in working on this legislation or talking to your staff. commissioner antonini: yeah, and my memory is when that came up, it was for isolated parts in san francisco and virtually every place, except for the ct, or the c-3. i think there's a limit to which we can go on these things. but, anyway, i would probably not support the presentupport t. it may be advisable to continue both items. are we on a time clock on this? >> supervisor alioto-pier's